Chidambaram, former Finance Minister, then came to the

Chidambaram, former Finance Minister, then came to the

ZCZC
PRI GEN NAT
.NEWDEL DEL97
RS-BILL 2 LAST
Chidambaram, former Finance Minister, then came to the
support of Ramesh, saying all that his party colleague had “pointed out was that you have given a ruling….” He said “anyone can err”, including the constitutional authorities like the Speaker, the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman or even judges.
“All that Mr. Jairam Ramesh points out — and I want to support him on that — is that there is a vast difference between a financial Bill and a Money Bill. All Money Bills are financial Bills, but not all financial Bills are Money Bills.
Therefore, if the Speaker has not certified I am taking what he said — a Bill as a Money Bill, and if the Secretary General describes it as a financial Bill, the question is: is it a financial Bill or a Money Bill,” he said.
“Now, Sir, if you have given a ruling that it is a Money Bill notwithstanding a certification, …. we earnestly urge you to reconsider the ruling. That is all,” Chidambaram told the Deputy Chairman.
Kurien responded by saying, “…Mr. Chidambaram, you are a leading advocate. You should also know that even a financial Bill, the first category, cannot be introduced here. You should know that too. It can be introduced only there. That is the ruling I gave. You may see the Constitution.” Naidu then said, “I respect Mr. Chidambaram’s wisdom. He is surely knowledgeable…..The comment that was made was, …
it is sarcastic, and an accusation against the Chair. How can Mr. Chidambaram support Mr. Jairam Ramesh, instead of advising him to express regret? ….It is a matter of the dignity of the House…”
Kurien said he would go through the records and expunge it but Naidu insisted that Ramesh should express regret.
Naidu maintained that “nothing has been violated” and the Congress members could not “preach” considering that what they have done.
“The Chair has given a ruling and that is the end of the matter. …. He should immediately regret….If at all he is a true parliamentarian, a seasoned parliamentarian,” he said.
The Deputy Chairman then asserted that a ruling cannot be discussed or criticized.
Prasad said the “behaviour and the language used against the Deputy Chairman” is “regrettable” as it amounted to questioning the authority of the Chair.
“We also condemn the statement that the Leader of the House has ….. Repeatedly, it has been said. It is completely wrong, unconstitutional, and, I am sorry to say, they must apologize for the kind of language used against the Leader of the House….,” the Law Minister said.
Kurien emphasised that “it is the tradition of the House, and the Rules also stipulate it very well, that nobody can question the ruling of the Chair. It is final.” He said Article 110 is very clear that the final authority to decide a Bill as a Money Bill is the Speaker of Lok Sabha and if the Speaker has decided it, it is final.
Ramesh then contended that the Speaker has said that it is not a Money Bill. PTI NKD AKK
AKK
12012005
NNNN

PTI